I am neither autistic nor have any mental problem other than stress from having to suffer this world. You could say I have a considerable ego and indeed I do but even that is not an affliction for it is not unwarranted.

Chill dude. This world is going to continue on in the way it is whatever you do, so you may as well go with the flow. Don't let it stress you out. That way lies depression and further metal illness.

Oh, and the thing about Ego's , is that those who suffer big ones think they are warranted, but those who have to suffer those with them them think the exact opposite. Practically the definition of Ego!

I would sooner kill myself trying to make things better than lay down with the dead

That's actually a good point of view to have. The problem is that you are going about it in a completely counterproductive way and you won't achieve anything with your current approach. If you don't believe me, I have empirical evidence to back up my claim, it's called Dan's life. Marathon runners don't win marathons by trying to sprint as fast as they can for 2 hours and not wasting time slowing down for water. That's your approach to everything, and all it's going to achieve is you lying at the side of the road with cramped up legs while everyone else finishes the race. If you pace yourself with the other runners you might even realize that some of them know things that you don't and you can learn from them.

You have a blindspot that prevents you from seeing all the flaws in your own "inventions", especially when someone points them out to you. You simply cannot believe that someone else could find a problem that you didn't notice yourself. Speaking of which ... your suspension system won't last 1000km on real roads and that's a generous estimate. Of course when it breaks, you would put the blame for that on the people who maintain the roads and let them deviate from perfect racetrack conditions, because hey, you're a genius, so it couldn't be your fault.

You could say I have a considerable ego and indeed I do but even that is not an affliction for it is not unwarranted.

This is exactly your problem. Your whole ego is based upon being smart, instead of having a healthy sense of self-confidence. That's why you can never accept being wrong, because it would mean that you aren't smart.Humility isn't a result of not being smart, or not being able to do things. Humility is a result of having the self confidence not to be emotionally threatened by other peoples' smarts, strength, ability, and being able to accept being wrong. Think of it this way, Dan: If you are so confident of your intellectual superiority, why do you have to broadcast it?

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

supershuki, I'm trying desperately to reach you deadheads. I have no hangups. my greatness is precisely a love of truth even when I'm wrong. you and all the others who mindless oppose me are the ones who refuse to accept being wrong.on occasion I make mistakes, I don't care for it but I make it a conscious point to embrace that mistake and in doing so I become better. holding on to a mistake like you do is a mindless illusion that by denying the truth you think that the truth isn't true..idiotic but universal

I am the one that doesn't have such hangups. I am the one who can think cleanly, unfettered, without emotional interference.I am the one who dare say the emperor has no clothes. you are the one who violently defend the clothes. my IQ is only top 2nd or 1st percentile. hundred million of those in the world. my excellence is the lack of hangups and lack of reverence for convention and status quo. I think for myself and that's how I become great. not by declaration but by real values.truth is my ally and a powerful ally it isslowly working towards bouncing tourists accomplishes nothing other than adoration from the groupies. it is not a build up to something worthwhile. it's a cop out. going to space and shaming nasa by outclassing them on a shoe string budget will really matter. and that is much easier than bouncing tourists and probably considerably more profitable.

I am neither autistic nor have any mental problem other than stress from having to suffer this world. You could say I have a considerable ego and indeed I do but even that is not an affliction for it is not unwarranted.

Actually, I think Freud would've called it narcissistic personality disorder.

I googled Dans name a while ago. It seems he spends his life going from forum to forum, explaining basic scientific principles to engineers and scientists. It seems that he is ignored by the natives on the few forums I glanced through. There were a couple of people correcting his poor understanding of how stuff actually works when you get beyond the basic scientific stuff. The funny thing is that people working in the fields that Dan likes to preach about consider the science parts to be common knowledge because they have known them since they were children. Dan however seems to think that he is the only person that understands this stuff and his mission is to educate the world. He's showing no signs that he has any capability for adapting to circumstances and I fear he will continue to follow his losing strategy. So don't hold your breath waiting for him to use some tools to interact with the real world. He seems to prefer sticking to his mouse and keyboard.

I would like to see some progress on your free ranger. In the last thread I did voice some concerns as others have done. However it is still an interesting project why don't you move forwards with it? You could build the tub for a very low cost.

I applied for funding from various agencies and funds chartered to bring green innovation but without exception they were morons. I've participated in a couple of green idea competitions and they were morons too. one case was particularly grievous. my 20x more efficient mobility idea lost to 11 pusher mowers pulled after a combustion engine lawntractor.you can see the product here www.mowon.dkit's possibly the least energy efficient design on the market. ever.but in their application they just blatantly claimed it was 70-80% more efficient than other mowers.and the idiot judges (who had basically no technical backgrounds) stated that they were sceptical of the efficiency claim yet felt they wanted to reward it for being a ready product.. (and it was a stated idea competition)to compound the issue the judges hadn't even seen my idea. there was an unannounced secret prescreening in which 8 ideas were selected for the judges to consider and mine wasn't among them.

as for going it alone I have very limited means. I work part time from home to be able to devote as much time to intellectual growth as possible so funding a car factory is not in the cards. do try to understand.plus I'm spending time on many things, one of which is trying to wake up AA. why don't you join me in that instead.

I've started designing a bit on a 2+2 car type with a le mans prototype style body because that can be an aerodynamically efficient shape.

but an ultra lean orbital rocket for feather weight satellites with lovely live HD video of the earth or light weight 1meter telescopes for looking up and down would [be true progress]. all of which would be quite cheap and profitable.

Dan,

I have a serious question about your light weight telescope plan. One of the selling points you give is that it would be profitable. Could you give some more details about the financial side of the plan? Who are the customers? What is the size of the market in revenue per year? Who are the competitors and how much market share will a new entrant be able to get? What is the cost and schedule you would estimate for developing the launcher, satellites, and ground infrastructure? What is the net present value of the opportunity?

I'm sure there will be ways to make a profit launching small satellites, but I'm wondering why you are so fixated on light weight telescopes specifically?

rsteinke, as is obvious and what I have explained several times now, is that a telescope is a unique sweetspot of potency and ease. it's lightness makes it manageable for AA to put in orbit. how can the obvious be so hard for everyone to understand. it would instantly shame Nasa and move things forward. these bastards only understand massive public shame. just like the car industry now moves as a result of massive public shame in the documentary who killed the electric car. a very light scope can have resolution in excess of what is commercially available. even live coverage.

space imaging is a company that has made a living selling data from the ikonos satellite which is a massive very expensive imaging space telescope. they have been able to fund that with their sales for years so I assume there is a lot of money in it. mining, agricultural, oil, mapping companies. these are their customers. and they have been buying 1meter resolution data. easily matched with the smallest of scopes.someone like CNN might well pay good money for occasional live coverage as well.and then there are the universities paying for scope time.

I have a serious question about your light weight telescope plan. One of the selling points you give is that it would be profitable.

Several people have asked him this question before, and he always replies by insulting them or doing some kind of vague hand-waving mixed with some unspecified assumptions. I have posted some preliminary costings (http://spacefellowship.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=39688#p39688) of this project in which I took the lowest possible values for all the costs. I even took the assumption that Dans Magic Telescope (DMT) could be made as light as he says it can. Please note that the lightest 40 inch (1 meter) telescope that is currently available on the market weighs over 250kg. That's without adding gyroscopes, solar panels, antennas, shielding, batteries, fuel, thrusters etc, or making it robust enough the survive a launch. I think it's safe to assume that my costings are out by a factor of 50-100 in favour of the DMT being a plausible project. Dan ridiculed my numbers but refused to be drawn into any detailed discussion of them. He has also ignored any questions related to the orbital inclination, altitude, focal ratio, radio comms frequencies etc of the DMT. He discounts all the engineering and R&D costs and infrastructure development costs as trivial.

Some part of Dans subconscious probably knows that the DMT is purely a fantasy project. I believe that he deliberately insults and alienates people to ensure that even the most basic development of the project never takes place. If it was to be analysed in any detail his little mental image of himself as the great misunderstood architect would come crumbling down.

He also can't see the inherent contradiction in his own posts when he talks about the multi-billion dollar companies that spend mega bucks on their infrastructure while he knows how to do the same thing for fraction of the cost. In the real world you don't get to be wealthy by wasting more money than your competitors, you usually get to the top of your market niche by doing things more efficiently and cheaper than your competitors. If he was really such a visionary genius he should have no problem getting a well paid job working for a space imaging company.

rsteinke, as is obvious and what I have explained several times now, is that a telescope is a unique sweetspot of potency and ease.

space imaging is a company that has made a living selling data ... so I assume there is a lot of money in it.

You have not explained the "potency and ease" of your telescope idea. You have given no details at all. How much revenue will it generate? How much will it cost to implement? Put a number on it. Have evidence to back that number up. Until you fill in those details it's not a business plan.

If you go in front of investors and say, "Someone else made money at it so I assume there's a lot of money in it." they will be running for the door as fast as they can.

Even if you think it's so obviously profitable and we're stupid for not seeing it, we've told you what kind of information would convince us so find that information and convince us.

If you are asking Armadillo to stop what they are doing and pursue your idea instead, then the burden of proof is on you to present those numbers.

johno wrote:

Please note that the lightest 40 inch (1 meter) telescope that is currently available on the market weighs over 250kg.

Yeah, you're not going to get a mirror to hold its shape to within 1/4 wavelength of light if it's made of aluminum foil.